Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity?

from the but-think-of-the-commenters... dept

The EFF and the National Coalition Against Censorship are apparently asking YouTube to consider changing its policy with regards to nudity. Apparently, it will allow nudity if the video is from a film or TV show -- but not if it's user generated videos made for YouTube. Separately, YouTube suggests it will allow nudity with "some educational, documentary and scientific content, but only if that is the sole purpose of the video and it is not gratuitously graphic." The problem, according to the EFF and NCAC, is that there is no exception for work that is artistic in nature, and apparently YouTube recently removed the videos of a well-known artist, Amy Greenfield, for violating the "no nudity" policy. Now, this isn't actually a "censorship" issue, since YouTube is a private site, and not the government. So, honestly, I don't see any problem with YouTube deciding that it doesn't want that particular content on its site, but there is a separate issue raised here -- which is that, once again, the real issue is Google's lack of customer service -- something we've seen a lot of lately. One of the complaints is that Greenfield's videos were taken down with no recourse and no method for her to communicate with folks at YouTube to talk about getting them back online.

Filed Under: nudity, video, youtube
Companies: eff, google, ncac


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Malcolm Boura, 26 Feb 2010 @ 11:10am

    YouTube is a censor

    If there was any evidence that nudity caused harm then You Tube would have some excuse for their policy but the facts are actually very clear. Censoring the human body resutls in wide spread and often serious harm. What is more, it is particularly harmful to the young people that YouTube claims to be protecting. Try comparing the teenage pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted infection rates for prudish countries such as the USA with those for say The Netherlands, Denmark or many other European countries. Attitudes have consequences and the attitudes encouraged by YouTube are disastrous. Children become sexually active younger, are more likely to be promiscuous and less likely to use a condom or contraception. The results are predictable, getting on for ten time more likely to become pregnant, several times more likely to have an abortion and tens of times more likely to catch something.

    Prudery is child abuse with good intentions and anyone who doubts that should be required to stand in a juvenile abortion/pregnancy/STI waiting room and explain why it is that if those young people lived in The Netherlands hardly any of them would be there. Is irrational prejudice against the human body really worth the life of even one young person? This policy is driven by commercial pressures founded on prejudice and myth.

    What is even worse, because YouTube has a near monopoly, they are exporting harmful attitudes to the rest of the world.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.